People miss that AI isn't REPLACING corporate positions, it's identifying positions that are not needed. This is something it's good at.

It doesn't need to reach the level where it can do someones job to determine that the job is useless to the company or that a reorg can make the position redundant. This is where the layoffs are coming from - cutting out the fat.

You only need one manager reading the TPS reports.

It's hard to put a solid number together but there are somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 researchers / engineers in the Federal government. Losing 10,000 is actually fewer than you would expect considering how the significant trimming going on, especially when they were offered generous exit bonuses.

Just look at the corporate side - Amazon alone dumped 15,000 executive positions last year and as many as 30,000 overall.

10,000 sounds like a lot but it's not.

You're dying a little bit every day you sit on your butt impairing your circulation which in turn compromises the blood supply to your brain.

No article should make you think that a clever made up term like "active sitting" is in any way healthy. A healthy mind and body is one that is not sitting around but out and about engaging with the real world physically.

Exactly. The forces just aren't the same as normal gravity. Every movement has to compensate for angular momentum and your feet are actually much heavier than your head.

I read the article, I didn't say they were putting full sized structures in it. My point is they are extrapolating BAD DATA to LARGE STRUCTURES and that's a recipe for disaster.

I'm sure they did, just as sure as I am that a large part of the budget revolved around marketing it as a "HyperGravity" machine.

The bottom line is that when considering gravitational impact on large structures you're going to get much better results using simulators built upon decades of real world data than on a centrifuge that introduces forces that will never impact the structures being tested.

This thing is only useful if you plan to build a 300M dam and then spin it.

It's a common misconception that generating g forces by spinning can replicate gravity but they don't. You can feel this for yourself at most carnivals that offer rides like the "Graviton" where they spin you and then drop the floor out. Good fun, but it doesn't feel like gravity, you can feel the angular momentum (and it makes a lot of people sick).

There is a large gradient in the forces acting on a structure when using a centrifuge but with gravity, that force is constant across the entire structure. The taller the structure the more pronounced that gradient will be. If China is using these test results for building 300m dams I'd be very nervous.

And regarding dam testing - a centrifuge produces Coriolis effects that gravity does not. If they're doing dam testing with any kind of fluids, the results are going to be radically different than those due to gravity.

In typical fashion, China baits headlines with words like "Hypergravity" when this is just a large centrifuge that doesn't replicate gravity at all, not on a normal or a "Hyper" scale.

You know it's coming - ads generated as code comments

So... it's been warmer before last year... got it

> Because a car is designed to use a 12V battery... We've had that as a standard for decades.

The point I'm making, and the reason I highlighted it, is that it doesn't make sense to specifically point at the car battery itself rather than the car itself. Of course all ICE vehicles use a 12V battery, so why call out ONLY a dead battery for roadside repair rather than all cases? It reads like they are deliberately obfuscating the data.

And what qualifies as a roadside repair. Were hybrids included in the EV category?

The article mentions that the AA, which produced the report, has been announced as a new champion of the cross-industry "Electric Cars: The Facts" initiative, a campaign created by Autotrader, ChargeUK and the SMMT. So there is reasonable potential for bias here. The car industry is not known for being above board and honest with the public.

The phrasing of the central claim seems super odd to me as well:
"AA call-out data indicates EVs are more likely to be successfully repaired at the roadside than a 12-volt battery in a petrol or diesel car"

Why call out the 12V battery specifically if they're already going to quantify it as referring to a petrol or diesel car? Are they saying there are more successful EV roadside repairs than dead battery calls for an ICE?

I think it's reasonable to want to see the data before accepting the articles conclusion.

Bad enough we grant legal personhood to corporations that are psychopathic by design. If we classify AI agents as "human" we better bring back asylums to put this new class of psychopathic "person" into.

Alright my friend, if we live to 2050 one of us can return and say "I told you so"

Until that day, have a good one.

> the number is irrelevant, regardless of who made it up

This is the stance of virtually every climate alarmist - "you are a liar. Oh, you have a citation - they're liars too!" It''s so tiresome.

> "it would be too expensive to deal with the problem, therefore the science must be wrong"

My assertion is the expense is more damaging than than solution and the solution is a gamble at best. I have repeatedly stated that such immense sums of money are better spent virtually anywhere else.

If you have $5,000 in the bank and your car gets damaged but is still driveable, do you burn your $5,000 to make your car like new or do you spend that $5,000 on food, insurance, and a mortgage?

Even if one assumes humans have total control over the climate (we don't), and even if you assume the very worst predictions will come true, the end result is still less costly than the expense the climate alarmists are pushing for.

> Since the 275 trillion dollar estimate you gave previously was completely made up

https://www.reuters.com/market...

I'll just assume you apologized for your comment and hope you have a nice day free of irrational fears.